Observations on the anti-gun crowd

[forkup]

Your statement is unreasonable, irrational and false, and directly supports the OP

You cannot have a sound, rational, knowledgeable or reasonable conversation about gun control - that is, laws which place restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - without involving the constitution, because the constitution - the legal and political framework for the society we live in - directly addresses the right to keep and bear arms, and the limits which may be placed on same.

You can try to present an argument that does not involve the constitution and the jurisprudence regarding same, but then the argument takes place in a context that does not exist, and as such, supports the premise of the OP.

So, it does not matter how effective, justified or necessary you believe a law to be...
...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
-Scalia, Heller, 2006

-Asking questions to establish the framework that you use to determine if something is rational or reasonable in no way makes me irrational or unreasonable.

In fact, before you can have a conversation, it's vital that you at least have such a framework. In this case, your premise seemingly is predicated on the notion that your personal framework is the only correct one, and that not accepting that framework makes me definitionally wrong.

-Your framework, besides it being rigid, to the point of being unreasonabke, also is contradictory onto itself. Since it is clear by your response that you yourself don't accept the current interpretation of the second amendment since this is the only gun control you are willing to accept.

Laws which prohibit firing a firearm randomly into the air within city limits.

While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional. Even your quote from Scalia refers to handguns specifically. Implying that the SC recognizes that there should be limitations on the type of arms citizens should have.

Your argument seems to be. The only reasonable argument about gun control should start from what M14 Shooter personal interpretation is about the 2nd amendment, regardless of how the SC thinks of it. And anyone who doesn't accept that framework is by definition unreasonable.

And all this is before I even try to insert my own framework of what I consider reasonable.

I'm still working within yours.

 

[Failzero]

-Asking questions to establish the framework that you use to determine if something is rational or reasonable in no way makes me irrational or unreasonable.

In fact, before you can have a conversation, it's vital that you at least have such a framework. In this case, your premise seemingly is predicated on the notion that your personal framework is the only correct one, and that not accepting that framework makes me definitionally wrong.

-Your framework, besides it being rigid, to the point of being unreasonabke, also is contradictory onto itself. Since it is clear by your response that you yourself don't accept the current interpretation of the second amendment since this is the only gun control you are willing to accept.

While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional. Even your quote from Scalia refers to handguns specifically. Implying that the SC recognizes that there should be limitations on the type of arms citizens should have.

Your argument seems to be. The only reasonable argument about gun control should start from what M14 Shooter personal interpretation is about the 2nd amendment, regardless of how the SC thinks of it. And anyone who doesn't accept that framework is by definition unreasonable.

And all this is before I even try to insert my own framework of what I consider reasonable.

I'm still working within yours.

There are “ Prohibited Persons” in America

 

[westwall]

-Asking questions to establish the framework that you use to determine if something is rational or reasonable in no way makes me irrational or unreasonable.

In fact, before you can have a conversation, it's vital that you at least have such a framework. In this case, your premise seemingly is predicated on the notion that your personal framework is the only correct one, and that not accepting that framework makes me definitionally wrong.

-Your framework, besides it being rigid, to the point of being unreasonabke, also is contradictory onto itself. Since it is clear by your response that you yourself don't accept the current interpretation of the second amendment since this is the only gun control you are willing to accept.

While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional. Even your quote from Scalia refers to handguns specifically. Implying that the SC recognizes that there should be limitations on the type of arms citizens should have.

Your argument seems to be. The only reasonable argument about gun control should start from what M14 Shooter personal interpretation is about the 2nd amendment, regardless of how the SC thinks of it. And anyone who doesn't accept that framework is by definition unreasonable.

And all this is before I even try to insert my own framework of what I consider reasonable.

I'm still working within yours.

It's not OUR "personal framework ". The framework is the Constitution of the United States.

You know, the framework of the Nation.

 

[forkup]

It's not OUR "personal framework ". The framework is the Constitution of the United States.

You know, the framework of the Nation.

The interpretation of the Constitution is constitutionally the purvue of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that doesn't agree with your "personal framework."

A framework by the waynI'm personally perfectly willing to discuss.

Starting with this question.

If a citizens has the means, should that citizen have access to, let's not go overboard, napalm? Easily manufactured in your kitchen or should the government be allowed to restrict people from having it?

 

[westwall]

The interpretation of the Constitution is constitutionally the purvue of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that doesn't agree with your "personal framework."

A framework by the waynI'm personally perfectly willing to discuss.

Starting with this question.

If a citizens has the means, should that citizen have access to, let's not go overboard, napalm? Easily manufactured in your kitchen or should the government be allowed to restrict people from having it?

Anybody who wants to play with napalm should be allowed to. If they use it criminally, then they go to prison for life.

How's that work for you?

Just like a fast car. Just because I can drive it 200 mph on the road doesn't mean I will. I reserve that for special locations like racetracks, and closed airports. But I have the car. If I drive it like an idiot and hurt someone, then I go to prison.

Merely possessing an object shouldn't be criminal.

 

[forkup]

There are “ Prohibited Persons” in America

Yes. Something that in itself says that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute. The reason it isn't is because it's obvious that there is a tension between the 2nd amendment and the public interest.

Ones you establish that notion though it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. That's where there is a "reasonable" discussion to be had.

 

[toobfreak]

Trust me, hating the left requires no work. Simple common sense does that.

Hating the Left comes automatically, West, from being constantly victimized by them.

Made all the worse by the fact that they can never seem to give any clear, sensible justification for doing so and whose reasons and followers usually seem half-witted at best to intentionally and cruelly seditious.

 

[forkup]

How's that work for you?

It doesn't.

I think wanting to have napalm to "play with", in itself says a person can not be trusted with it..

Your fast car analogy doesn't work considering a fast car has an obvious peaceful non-violent purpose. Napalm does not. In fact drive fast enough times and the government will take the right to drive away. Regardless if you kill someone

 

[Concerned American]

The interpretation of the Constitution is constitutionally the purvue of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that doesn't agree with your "personal framework."

A framework by the waynI'm personally perfectly willing to discuss.

Starting with this question.

If a citizens has the means, should that citizen have access to, let's not go overboard, napalm? Easily manufactured in your kitchen or should the government be allowed to restrict people from having it?

Good point--where do you stop? Napalm can be manufactured in your own home as can be a number of dangerous explosives from various and sundry, easily available substances. Again, where do you stop with your prohibitions? Fertilizers? Diesel fuel? Gasoline? Alcohol?

 

[toobfreak]

Is this the kind of person you are? A busybody? Did I specifically ask for an opinion from you?

So lessee-- -- -- you joined a discussion board and engaged a thread where when someone gives you an informed rebuttal to your post, your best response is that you just didn't expect to hear from anyone but the OP, so want them to just go away???

And when the OP replies to you, I expect you to have an equally dismissive and evasive post, thus proving both West and the OP right in that none of you quacks can ever defend (or even define) your position on /anything/ in any clear, rational way without deflections and a lot of horsecrap.

 

[forkup]

Good point--where do you stop? Napalm can be manufactured in your own home as can be a number of dangerous explosives from various and sundry, easily available substances. Again, where do you stop with your prohibitions? Fertilizers? Diesel fuel? Gasoline? Alcohol?

At manafactured napalm is the obvious answer. Fertizer, diesel fuel, gasoline and alcohol all have non-explosive uses. Napalm... not so much.

 

[toobfreak]

What I find most amusing about this post is that it condemns the “anti-gun crowd” for being unable to engage in a “knowledgeable, honest, reasoned conversation,” because their arguments are supposedly full of strawmen, falsehoods, non-sequiturs, and ad hominem attacks.

Then, almost immediately, it falls into the same kind of reasoning it claims to oppose.

“You say you're not anti-gun, you just want ‘common sense’ laws and/or ‘reasonable restrictions’?”

That’s either a strawman or, at minimum, a broad generalization unless you can point to people here actually making that argument.

And this:

“Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms…”

…is an irrelevant litmus test a non-sequitur. Even if someone can’t point to such a law, that still would not prove they’re incapable of making a reasoned argument about gun policy.

The debate over reasonable gun control does not hinge on whether a person believes a law violates the Constitution. It hinges on what they can rationally defend as effective, justified, proportional, or necessary.

So there’s a pretty obvious irony in condemning weak argumentation while simultaneously relying on broad generalizations, loaded framing, and a test that doesn’t actually establish the point being argued.

But I’ll make a deal with you.

Let’s actually have the kind of honest, reasoned conversation you say you want.

I’ll start with two questions:

What gun control law, if any, do you believe does not infringe on the Second Amendment?

And why is the Second Amendment itself reasonable in the first place?

Wow. 267 words and not one of them defining YOUR position on being anti-gun or anti-2A and why. Just ad hominems, evasions and deflections, thinly disguised by asking questions trying to change the subject and control the conversation.

 

[Concerned American]

The reason it isn't is because it's obvious that there is a tension between the 2nd amendment and the public interest.

That ^^^ all depends on which half of the public's interest you are concerned with. Your interests and my interests are clearly not the same in spite of the fact that we both share the moniker of 'public'.

 

[Concerned American]

At manafactured napalm is the obvious answer. Fertizer, diesel fuel, gasoline and alcohol all have non-explosive uses. Napalm... not so much.

The items required to manufacture napalm in your home are also widely available. Please try to provide knowledgeable responses and not your knee-jerk opposition.

 

[markef]

-Asking questions to establish the framework that you use to determine if something is rational or reasonable in no way makes me irrational or unreasonable.

In fact, before you can have a conversation, it's vital that you at least have such a framework. In this case, your premise seemingly is predicated on the notion that your personal framework is the only correct one, and that not accepting that framework makes me definitionally wrong.

-Your framework, besides it being rigid, to the point of being unreasonabke, also is contradictory onto itself. Since it is clear by your response that you yourself don't accept the current interpretation of the second amendment since this is the only gun control you are willing to accept.

While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional. Even your quote from Scalia refers to handguns specifically. Implying that the SC recognizes that there should be limitations on the type of arms citizens should have.

Your argument seems to be. The only reasonable argument about gun control should start from what M14 Shooter personal interpretation is about the 2nd amendment, regardless of how the SC thinks of it. And anyone who doesn't accept that framework is by definition unreasonable.

And all this is before I even try to insert my own framework of what I consider reasonable.

I'm still working within yours.

Anyone imagining that gun-grabbing laws will somehow stop violent lawbreakers from getting guns and shooting people is lacking intelligence.

 

[toobfreak]

ALL gun control laws infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

BINGO. I dare anyone to show me a gun-control law that doesn't. And what does the 2A say?

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What we really need are People-control laws. Education, training, like we used to have in the 1950s.

No gun has ever picked itself up and shot anyone; the whole point to gun-control laws is to deflect from the real issue: the effect of progressivism on society to lead to ignorance, poverty, crime and violence, by trying to blame the GUNS instead. The increase in gun violence (guns used in crimes) is directly proportional to the increase in progressive ideology in our culture.

 

[forkup]

Wow. 267 words and not one of them defining YOUR position on being anti-gun or anti-2A and why. Just ad hominems, evasions and deflections, thinly disguised by asking questions trying to change the subject and control the conversation.

I didn't on purpose. That would introduce my own framework into the discussion.

In my experience that just makes people talk past oneanother both giving their opinion without ever adressing the other persons view.

If you're interested. I think the second amendment doesn't make sense in today's context, and should be amended.

As my personal view on guns. Their shoukd be extensive background checks on guns, and a person has to show they can handle guns safely.

Having passed those check the possesion of hunting weapons should be unrestricted because there's many peoply who use hunting as a means to feed themselves. Hand guns should be allowed for personal defense although I think doing so is a bad idea.

Long guns not designed for hunting should be banned.

I don't know how many words that is, but I have no problem stating my opinion.

 

[forkup]

That ^^^ all depends on which half of the public's interest you are concerned with. Your interests and my interests are clearly not the same in spite of the fact that we both share the moniker of 'public'.

Our interest are the same, our perception of how they are served best, are not. Important distinction.

 

[forkup]

Anyone imagining that gun-grabbing laws will somehow stop violent lawbreakers from getting guns and shooting people is lacking intelligence.

There's plenty of countries that have "gun-grabbing laws", ALL of them have fewer violent lawbreakers shooting people.

 

[toobfreak]

The Bill of Rights are nine limitations on what government (those corruptocrats) can do to the people, and one final option.
The 2nd merely enshrined the Right of the people to REMOVE corruptocrats when they become too powerful, and oppressive.

Exactly. The Founders recognized that in history, wherever a population was utterly disarmed and controlled, soon followed tyranny, so the ultimate solution is the CONSENT to be governed, and should the government become corrupt, the ultimate reset resided within the people to take back their consent.

Then someone like Joe Biden makes light of it claiming we are nothing against nukes and F-15s, ignoring the fact that the military controlling those weapons are still part of THE PEOPLE. That and the fact that private gun-owners in the USA constitute what I believe is the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD.

What did Sen. Kelly tell us? To ignore illegal orders? Just imagine then when some democrat president orders his military to attack and go to war with his own public, take up arms against America itself because people have had enough and are fighting back against tyranny, and THE MILITARY IGNORES HIS ILLEGAL ORDER TO ATTACK AMERICA ITSELF?